GAC to Become DAS

[englanddg]

The crazy part is; I think if Disney were allowed to ask for proof then the people with genuine difficulties would have no problem providing it and the people that have none; can't provide...it's so simple and I feel that which ever governing body made that decision needs to move forward with that.

Let me guess, you base this on HIPAA?

Proof is a legal requirement under ADA. If you want a parking permit, for example, you must provide proof. HIPAA has nothing to do with that. HIPAA has to do with healthcare providers themselves, not the voluntary concessions of patients.

For example, if you said to Disney "I am disabled", they can LEGALLY say, "show me a doctors note". However, they can't say "Doctor, tell me if this patient is disabled."

HIPAA effects providers, not patients. Read the danged law.

ADA, likewise, offers only certain "allowances", and none of them are "protections" (gosh, I hate that term, as if everyone in the world was out to make life miserable for the disabled...)...they are minimum allowance considerations that a business that markets to the open public should (in some cases must) adhere to in order to be in compliance...and, I might add, it's silly.

I'll stop here before it gets political...

 

[englanddg]

Take my brother for example; he has been treated terribly throughout his life because he has cerebral palsy. Bullied to the point of depression and suicidal thoughts, had to sit out and watch other people do things he couldn't. Desperate to lead a normal life and can't because of his disability. Some days he accepts it many others he doesn't.
He gets to WDW and we as well as him explain his difficulties and issues he will encounter throughout the day and he is told no but if you tell me you have autism I can give you this assistance.
He is being told that his disability isn't good enough. That he would be better off having autism. This thing that he battles every day to be good is suddenly evil again and it's not good enough for him to enjoy a day at Disney World.

Once again, having felt he isn't good enough all his life, he is made to feel not good enough again when trying to get assistance for his disability. That's very very wrong.

His disability isn't good enough for what? To be called disabled?

I don't understand...

 

[CaptainessKylie]

Let me guess, you base this on HIPAA?

Proof is a legal requirement under ADA. If you want a parking permit, for example, you must provide proof. HIPAA has nothing to do with that. HIPAA has to do with healthcare providers themselves, not the voluntary concessions of patients.

For example, if you said to Disney "I am disabled", they can LEGALLY say, "show me a doctors note". However, they can't say "Doctor, tell me if this patient is disabled."

HIPAA effects providers, not patients. Read the danged law.

ADA, likewise, offers only certain "allowances", and none of them are "protections" (gosh, I hate that term, as if everyone in the world was out to make life miserable for the disabled...)...they are minimum allowance considerations that a business that markets to the open public should (in some cases must) adhere to in order to be in compliance...and, I might add, it's silly.

I'll stop here before it gets political...

Thank you, I wasn't clued up on that. I just know from working universal guest services that we couldn't ask but if provided we could look.

Maybe whoever makes these decisions at Disney et should then be moving forward to ask for proof. I know we wouldn't be offended providing that, but I guess that's a personal opinion.

 

[CaptainessKylie]

His disability isn't good enough for what? To be called disabled?

I don't understand...

To receive assistance.

 

[englanddg]

To receive assistance.

I think the issue is...what assistance is required?

 

[CaptainessKylie]

I think the issue is...what assistance is required?

The same assistance they are giving to to other people with mental challenges, or in Disney words the assistance they are giving to those with autism.

The theme park difficulties that people with autism can face are the same as the theme park difficulties that those with CP can face (depending on the severity of either).

 

[englanddg]

Thank you, I wasn't clued up on that. I just know from working universal guest services that we couldn't ask but if provided we could look.

Maybe whoever makes these decisions at Disney et should then be moving forward to ask for proof. I know we wouldn't be offended providing that, but I guess that's a personal opinion.

I know from working with the disabled community, that most people are not well read on the laws, but they love to toss them around.

And, you are correct, I don't have any autistic children (or other disabilities) in my family, but I also come from a unique perspective. As a child I was the "sickly" one (probably because I was premature), and as a result I was always told how "sick" I was, and eventually, for a period of my life, that became a crux for me as a child (and my family).

I couldn't play sports because I had Asthma, I was always getting in trouble at school because I was Hyperactive (what later became ADHD)...

I'll give you an example...I was around 10 or so when this happened. I was visiting my Grandparents, and they took me out, along with my great grandmother (who had Alzheimers, but it was mild at this point) and my great Aunt) to a Wendy's Superbar. I ordered the "all you can eat" bar. Where I was from (around DC), that meant you got a plate. The "one trip" was a bowl. I was SURE of this! So, I took the plate, and filled it up. I went to get a refill, and...was told that I couldn't! The plate was for the one trips!

I ended up throwing a fit in the middle of Wendy's, one I'm not proud of today, but...it happened. I screamed and cried and cursed out the workers. I also thoroughly embarrassed my family. We left early, and I got my bum tanned that night by my grandmother, but my parents made me feel this was ok. It was due to my "condition" over the phone. So, I self justified this behavior because they did.

It wasn't until I was around 12 or so that some military doctor finally told my parents to stop coddling me and shove me out into the real world. Stop searching for reasons and accommodations, and start looking for solutions.

He had me enroll in soccer, and after a few years of that my asthma largely went away...why? My lungs got stronger and I learned how to manage it. I started doing better in school. Why? Because I couldn't be the "stupid silly kid" who blamed it on some disease I didn't understand, rather I was held accountable.

It sucked for me at the time...but it was the best thing they ever did. Do I have issues? Sure. I'm OCD, I have social interaction issues, I have excuses out the .

But, none of that means I can't wait in a line.

And, then I look at people like Zach Anner.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZachAnner

Of course, this is nothing close to your brother's condition or experience, so please don't think I'm conflating his life experience because of it. But, it is vastly similar to the "conditions" that are presented as reasons for accommodation. "My child can't wait in line"

The point is, if you make excuses, excuses will rule your life.

 

[flynnibus]

Let me guess, you base this on HIPAA?

No - simply that except under specific scenarios (related to safety mostly) - requiring proof for public accommodation has been interpreted as discriminating against those in need - hence illegal under the ADA.

The short version is... you can not require proof of a disability to provide accommodation for it except under very specific situations.

 

[unkadug]

No - simply that except under specific scenarios (related to safety mostly) - requiring proof for public accommodation has been interpreted as discriminating against those in need - hence illegal under the ADA.

The short version is... you can not require proof of a disability to provide accommodation for it except under very specific situations.

The accommodation that Disney makes with GAC are over and above the minimum required assistance. Any additional assistance that they wish to give to a guest should require proof of need.

 

[CaptainessKylie]

I know from working with the disabled community, that most people are not well read on the laws, but they love to toss them around.

And, you are correct, I don't have any autistic children (or other disabilities) in my family, but I also come from a unique perspective. As a child I was the "sickly" one (probably because I was premature), and as a result I was always told how "sick" I was, and eventually, for a period of my life, that became a crux for me as a child (and my family).

I couldn't play sports because I had Asthma, I was always getting in trouble at school because I was Hyperactive (what later became ADHD)...

I'll give you an example...I was around 10 or so when this happened. I was visiting my Grandparents, and they took me out, along with my great grandmother (who had Alzheimers, but it was mild at this point) and my great Aunt) to a Wendy's Superbar. I ordered the "all you can eat" bar. Where I was from (around DC), that meant you got a plate. The "one trip" was a bowl. I was SURE of this! So, I took the plate, and filled it up. I went to get a refill, and...was told that I couldn't! The plate was for the one trips!

I ended up throwing a fit in the middle of Wendy's, one I'm not proud of today, but...it happened. I screamed and cried and cursed out the workers. I also thoroughly embarrassed my family. We left early, and I got my bum tanned that night by my grandmother, but my parents made me feel this was ok. It was due to my "condition" over the phone. So, I self justified this behavior because they did.

It wasn't until I was around 12 or so that some military doctor finally told my parents to stop coddling me and shove me out into the real world. Stop searching for reasons and accommodations, and start looking for solutions.

He had me enroll in soccer, and after a few years of that my asthma largely went away...why? My lungs got stronger and I learned how to manage it. I started doing better in school. Why? Because I couldn't be the "stupid silly kid" who blamed it on some disease I didn't understand, rather I was held accountable.

It sucked for me at the time...but it was the best thing they ever did. Do I have issues? Sure. I'm OCD, I have social interaction issues, I have excuses out the .

But, none of that means I can't wait in a line.

And, then I look at people like Zach Anner.

http://www.youtube.com/user/ZachAnner

Of course, this is nothing close to your brother's condition or experience, so please don't think I'm conflating his life experience because of it. But, it is vastly similar to the "conditions" that are presented as reasons for accommodation. "My child can't wait in line"

The point is, if you make excuses, excuses will rule your life.

Thank you for sharing and whilst this is completely off track I agree with the solutions method you spoke about.

I can't say I agreed with the way my brother was raised. But then I don't have a child with a disability. I didn't like the way he could get away with everything in the house because he was disabled and my parents never wanted to help change his behavior (CP can be caused by child birth, like my Brother, I think my mum carries a sense of guilt and that altered her perspective).

My daughter was born 2 months early. By one month old I had stopped quoting adjusted ages, I had stopped taking her to preemie classes, I stopped putting that barrier in her way. Her first birthday I cried and cried, she had achieved so much because we let her be a baby and not a preemie and that was the biggest milestone ever. I want her to grow up being great for being her not because she's great for doing something and OMG did you know she was 2 months early as well!!! Lol so I guess I see it that if even I'm accepting a scenario where my brother needs assistance then you can bet your butt he needs that assistance!

 

[englanddg]

No - simply that except under specific scenarios (related to safety mostly) - requiring proof for public accommodation has been interpreted as discriminating against those in need - hence illegal under the ADA.

The short version is... you can not require proof of a disability to provide accommodation for it except under very specific situations.

Sort of.

You cannot require proof of accommodation if it's within the scope of ADA. For example, you can't say "show me a doctors note otherwise you can't use this accessibility ramp".

However, if one is fully compliant with accessibility provisions of ADA, if further requests are made, then they are fully within their rights to request proof. They won't, because it's emotionally charged and a legal, pr, and political nightmare. But, they are within their rights according to the law.

 

[englanddg]

Thank you for sharing and whilst this is completely off track I agree with the solutions method you spoke about.

I can't say I agreed with the way my brother was raised. But then I don't have a child with a disability. I didn't like the way he could get away with everything in the house because he was disabled and my parents never wanted to help change his behavior (CP can be caused by child birth, like my Brother, I think my mum carries a sense of guilt and that altered her perspective).

My daughter was born 2 months early. By one month old I had stopped quoting adjusted ages, I had stopped taking her to preemie classes, I stopped putting that barrier in her way. Her first birthday I cried and cried, she had achieved so much because we let her be a baby and not a preemie and that was the biggest milestone ever. I want her to grow up being great for being her not because she's great for doing something and OMG did you know she was 2 months early as well!!! Lol so I guess I see it that if even I'm accepting a scenario where my brother needs assistance then you can bet your butt he needs that assistance!

My mother doesn't know I know this, but she took anti-morning sickness meds, and I suspect she thinks that's why I was pre-me. (It was a big deal at the time, class action lawsuits, etc.) She had a whole scrapbook filled with pictures of me and news articles and letters, etc...something I suspect she doesn't know I've seen...yeah, lazy summers digging around the house.)

Point is, I hear you on the guilt.

I never questioned whether your brother needs assistance. I don't know him or you.

My question is...what assistance does he need? I don't need to hear your whole life story if it's as simple as "He needs help if a ride isn't wheelchair accessible"...

Summarizing...how would your propose the system work?

 

[flynnibus]

The accommodation that Disney makes with GAC are over and above the minimum required assistance. Any additional assistance that they wish to give to a guest should require proof of need.

Doing so opens Disney up to be screwed. Here's why..

If you provide two types of accommodation for a disability.. Level 1 and a second 'better' Level 2. By offering Level 2, you validate that the type of accommodation is not only feasible theoretically - but also in practice. You basically say 'yes, this can be done'.

Now, someone comes along and argues 'Level 1 isn't good enough for my disability - Level 2 is what should be considered reasonable'.

What is considered reasonable is not upward bound by the law except that it shouldn't be too significant a burden or risk altering what the organization/business is really about. 'reasonable' is an interpretation - an interpretation provided only in court. By providing that 'Level 2' service - Disney has made it hell-of-a hard to argue that doing so would be an undue burden on them. And if you made the only criteria for Level 2 to be 'providing proof' you've REALLY screwed yourself.. because you basically said you can do it for anyone with the disability... and you've opened yourself up to a second action by excluding someone based on something the law guarantees they don't have to provide.

If 'Level 2' is offered to anyone who can prove a disability - you've basically just proved their court case for them that you CAN do it. Then it's only a matter of arguing if Level 1 is 'good enough' or not.. and honestly the law and interpretation of the courts is NOT in favor of the business.

 

[flynnibus]

However, if one is fully compliant with accessibility provisions of ADA, if further requests are made, then they are fully within their rights to request proof. They won't, because it's emotionally charged and a legal, pr, and political nightmare. But, they are within their rights according to the law.

See post right above this one. This idea of 'tiered services' basically opens Disney up to be challenged on what is reasonable and feasible because you've based it on accommodating the disability.

 

[CaptainessKylie]

My mother doesn't know I know this, but she took anti-morning sickness meds, and I suspect she thinks that's why I was pre-me. (It was a big deal at the time, class action lawsuits, etc.) She had a whole scrapbook filled with pictures of me and news articles and letters, etc...something I suspect she doesn't know I've seen...yeah, lazy summers digging around the house.)

Point is, I hear you on the guilt.

I never questioned whether your brother needs assistance. I don't know him or you.

My question is...what assistance does he need? I don't need to hear your whole life story if it's as simple as "He needs help if a ride isn't wheelchair accessible"...

Summarizing...how would your propose the system work?

Oh I have made several posts about the assistance he requires to enjoy a somewhat day at the parks

I personally like the time system but there are days it doesn't work for him, you know some days are just worse than others. But when universal first started using this system we were those terribly family members going omg I can't believe they have changed it. He actually stopped us and said no this is great. You guys used to make me go from ride to ride without a break to fit in what we could because we were never really in line. But we were in line sometimes 20 minutes a time. Now I get to look at a schedule of the day, which you guys help me to plan and I can see where I can rest, when I can eat, when I can be in the cool and there's nothing you guys can do to make me do another ride in between (totally paraphrased, but that was the gist of it) so on the days that things are good this is great. On days things are a little more challenging (we try to avoid peaks) then yes sometimes using an express or a fastpass entrance and making the day a hell of a lot shorter is what we need but hey that's why we like the parks that offer the two tiers of accommodation. We don't abuse the system and really really despise the people that do.

 

[englanddg]

See post right above this one. This idea of 'tiered services' basically opens Disney up to be challenged on what is reasonable and feasible because you've based it on accommodating the disability.

Sure, they can be "challenged" on it, but it doesn't mean they are not compliant. They are.

If someone did "challenge them", and Disney lost, precedent would be set that would make construction, management and accommodation even more complex. And, that would be a pretty stupid lawsuit (though, I'm sure eventually it will happen)...

The point is, they are currently in compliance.

One can "challenge" pretty much anything legally.

Feasible accommodation is not what the law states. Reasonable accommodation is the law.

I note there is no major push to have the Roller Coasters at Six Flags or Universal be compliant with all height concerns (midgets are considered disabled under ADA), among other things.

 

[flynnibus]

Sure, they can be "challenged" on it, but it doesn't mean they are not compliant. They are.

Bull - The only definition of 'compliant' is in front of a judge on that day. There are interpretations by the DOJ that provide guidance on what they've defined/interpreted reasonable accommodation and act as a point a business can argue their case - but they are not the law itself. The standards of ACCESSIBLE DESIGN are incorporated into the law, but those only define physical construction and space design - they do not cover all disabilities or situations where a business would have to provide accommodation. All too often people think the standards of accessible design define the full scope of the ADA - and that is entirely untrue.

If someone did "challenge them", and Disney lost, precedent would be set that would make construction, management and accommodation even more complex. And, that would be a pretty stupid lawsuit (though, I'm sure eventually it will happen)...

Well that's how case law works, yes.

One can "challenge" pretty much anything legally.

Feasible accommodation is not what the law states. Reasonable accommodation is the law.

And 'reasonable' is interpretative by a court at the time. Hence the double edge sword that is the ADA. By writing a law that was entirely open ended they hoped to ensure coverage for all in need, but it's a expectation capped only by interpretation.. instead of most laws which are explicit.

I note there is no major push to have the Roller Coasters at Six Flags or Universal be compliant with all height concerns (midgets are considered disabled under ADA), among other things.

Safety is an explicitly defined exclusion incorporated into the law Mr Hyperbole.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

What's interesting to me is that 30 years ago there was a 1 in 2,500 diagnosis of autism...now the rate is more like 1 in 100 children are diagnosed with it.

That's because the definition of autism has been expanded to include a variety of mental disabilities. It used to be fairly narrow, but now it's more broad. I forget what my younger brother would have been classified as, but it wasn't autism. It was something with a very long name that made sense to no one.

EDIT: He had Pervasive Developmental Disorder, not otherwise specified. The definition has changed to be Autism Spectrum Disorder, which includes a wide variety of mental disorders that are related but were not previously classified together

http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism

 

[englanddg]

Bull - The only definition of 'compliant' is in front of a judge on that day. There are interpretations by the DOJ that provide guidance on what they've defined/interpreted reasonable accommodation and act as a point a business can argue their case - but they are not the law itself. The standards of ACCESSIBLE DESIGN are incorporated into the law, but those only define physical construction and space design - they do not cover all disabilities or situations where a business would have to provide accommodation. All too often people think the standards of accessible design define the full scope of the ADA - and that is entirely untrue.

Agreed, it is untrue. Reasonable accommodation is true.

Well that's how case law works, yes.

No, that's how how the law should work.

And 'reasonable' is interpretative by a court at the time. Hence the double edge sword that is the ADA. By writing a law that was entirely open ended they hoped to ensure coverage for all in need, but it's a expectation capped only by interpretation.. instead of most laws which are explicit.

Everyone is in some sort of need. It's a stupid law.

Safety is an explicitly defined exclusion incorporated into the law Mr Hyperbole.

[/quote]

So, it's ok to say you are too short to ride a ride, but not ok to say that you are too mentally effected to ride one.

My what a door to open.

 

[StarWarsGirl]

I couldn't play sports because I had Asthma...

Oh gosh. It's not about not being able to play sports, but about finding a sport you can do. I used to dance and my asthma is horrible (and I mean, put me into the hospital bad). It's one thing to say, "not outside" because of temperature or allergies. I don't exercise outside if it's below 50 degrees. But indoors is fine usually. Most people with asthma can do badminton or volleyball. Wish I were as lucky with you and the soccer. I ride an exercise bike indoors at full speed on a regular basis. Running for more than a minute makes me wheeze. All about finding the right type!

But anyway, off the asthma topic...